Jump to content
sw4400

Red Line Extension (RLE)

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

Last I checked, the 7000s were supposed to start arriving in 2020, not 2026.

Start, not finish. So people riding the Blue Line are supposed to be screwed pending your fiasco?

 

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

The proposal relieves bus congestion at 95th because everyone who lives closer to an MED stop than to 95th will simply get on the gray line, or a bus to the closest gray line stop, instead of a bus to 95th.

An assumption you made without any verifiable customer research (you are assuming that those passengers are not going to destinations other than Hyde Park or Michigan Ave., and hence don't want Red Line service), and therefore rejected.

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

The legislature should stick the burden of the additional operating costs on the CTA because it's a more efficient way of providing L service south of 95th than extending the red line would be.

Not unless THERE IS A SOURCE OF THE MONEY OR A SUFFICIENT OFFSET FROM CURRENT OPERATING COSTS TO PAY FOR IT. No more pop tax justification of "we need more revenue."

In that it is "more efficient" isn't correct either. How is operating a 15 mile extension to serve people south of 95th more efficient than operating a 4 mile one?

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

If the ridership is high enough, the operating costs become worth it

Again where is your verifiable ridership numbers?

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

it's quicker to build

As noted above, it isn't.

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

it's less reliant on the largess of the Trump administration

Even if one believes that Trump is going to last that long, it still will need to go through the same funding process, including documentation of costs and projected ridership and benefits. Do you think anyone is going to hand out a grant without documentation?

As for the Pink Line, it got a grant about 20 years ago, so unless you can prove that the feds would accept a similar application today, that's up to you. The choice then was either fix it or close it. This doesn't offer the same dilemma. So, again you have posed another strawman not worth answering.

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

 it'll serve neighborhoods north of 95th that the red line extension won't touch.

I thought you disclaimed that purpose. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Besides, they already have Red Line service.

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

Yeah, they would be. Who cares?

The bleeping TAXPAYERS care. You want the RTA tax increased a couple of more points?

42 minutes ago, mahatta said:

And the gray line, unlike the red line extension, allows for the complete elimination of various redundant bus routes along Lake Shore Drive.

Again, that's not your justification. I had said way back that CTA would have to eliminate the 14 bus and construct a transfer station at 71st to get any savings. The residents of South Shore, and the report to which you linked, indicated that they didn't want that.

 

Your arguing all over the place, without any supporting facts, just assumptions, proves nothing,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First tranche of 7000s delivered October 2020, 10 cars per month delivered thereafter. Assuming the gray line will require 50 cars (same as the pink line), the CTA would have enough to commence full operations February 2021. That's still not 2026.

The rest of your complaints seem to evince a worldview that's fundamentally opposed to the very concept of expanding rapid transit. The red line extension will cost more up front than turning the MED into an L line. This has been credibly demonstrated. If your concern is upfront cost, the gray line is a better solution.

If your concern is exclusively the CTA's operating budget, then yes, it makes more sense to spend $1 billion more upfront to build the red line extension. But there's no reason to focus myopically on operating budget. The gray line costs less up front, takes less time, and serves more of the city. In any event, Cambridge Systematics estimated the gold line would cost $60 million per year to operate. So maybe in ten to fifteen years the gray line will have cost more money to operate than it would have cost to extend the red line (after taking into account additional revenue from converts from Metra to the CTA, money saved eliminating bus lines, and the red line extension's own operating costs), but by that logic the CTA should have never built the orange line either. Maybe you would actually agree that the CTA shouldn't have built the orange line, but that's a pretty eccentric stance and well outside of the mainstream of Chicago politics. Expanding a transit network adds to that network's operating costs. That's normal and fine.

I can have it both ways, easily. The gray line's primary purpose is to extend the L past 95th, which is a goal the city has already committed itself too. It does this more efficiently than the red line extension. Unlike the red line extension, however, it has additional benefits for people who live north of 95th.

Yes, I want all state and local taxes increased (and a proportional income tax implemented). The state is undertaxed, which is why it's broke. But if your concern is the taxpayers' dollars, there's no reason for you to be supporting the more expensive red line extension over the less expensive gray line conversion. Even if Illinois and Chicagoland don't raise taxes a penny, the gray line still makes more financial sense than the red line extension.

Edit: Even assuming no revenue connection to the red/green/orange lines and the Loop elevated at Roosevelt (which, again, would be trivial to construct), how long does it take to access the red line from Millennium Station via the pedway? Four minutes? This is another non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mahatta said:

The state is undertaxed, which is why it's broke. But if your concern is the taxpayers' dollars, there's no reason for you to be supporting the more expensive red line extension over the less expensive gray line conversion.

Illinois isn't undertaxed & the state isn't broke because of taxes.   Illinois taxes are far too high now, especially when you take into account the obscene local real estate taxes we have to pay & the even worse, corruption tax we pay, because Illinois is without a doubt the most corrupt state in the country!   Illinois is broke because of that insane pension clause which prevents government pensions from being adjusted when the state's finances are bad, due to either downturns in the economy, people & companies leaving the state for greener pastures, but in this case, having to pay defined benefit pensions at a mandatory 3% COLA increase every year, even when Social Security has a COLA of zero!

We also have too damned many government employees.   If you don't believe that, go to any of the large Secretary of State offices for driver's licenses & car registrations, where there are dozens just pushing paper.   Then we have 7,000 units of government, more than California & Texas combined, which have about four times the population than Illinois.

The other states with pension problems don't have this clause.  And it was the four Democrats on the state supreme court which has ruled every attempt to modify the pensions unconstitutional.   The fact that they have an inherent conflict of interest in the case, due to the fact that they too will get state pensions, apparently doesn't bother them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mahatta said:

The rest of your complaints seem to evince a worldview that's fundamentally opposed to the very concept of expanding rapid transit. ...

No, my world view is that someone (including @mahatta)who has only assumptions ("Assuming....") thinks he can convince anyone by not having a plan, but arguing all over the place. Where the bleep did you get your 50 car "assuming"?

 

Here's essentially what I told Mike Payne: If business people really support it: HAVE THEM TEACH YOU HOW TO WRITE A BUSINESS PLAN FOR IT. And for you: HAVE SOMEONE TEACH YOU HOW TO WRITE A BUSINESS PLAN FOR IT. Here's even a link. You'll need to do market research for it, too.

Capiche?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, strictures said:

Illinois isn't undertaxed & the state isn't broke because of taxes.   Illinois taxes are far too high now, especially when you take into account the obscene local real estate taxes we have to pay & the even worse, corruption tax we pay, because Illinois is without a doubt the most corrupt state in the country!   Illinois is broke because of that insane pension clause which prevents government pensions from being adjusted when the state's finances are bad, due to either downturns in the economy, people & companies leaving the state for greener pastures, but in this case, having to pay defined benefit pensions at a mandatory 3% COLA increase every year, even when Social Security has a COLA of zero!

We also have too damned many government employees.   If you don't believe that, go to any of the large Secretary of State offices for driver's licenses & car registrations, where there are dozens just pushing paper.   Then we have 7,000 units of government, more than California & Texas combined, which have about four times the population than Illinois.

The other states with pension problems don't have this clause.  And it was the four Democrats on the state supreme court which has ruled every attempt to modify the pensions unconstitutional.   The fact that they have an inherent conflict of interest in the case, due to the fact that they too will get state pensions, apparently doesn't bother them.

Illinois only has high property taxes because of its extremely low income tax, and its income tax is only extremely low because it's a flat tax. New York's top marginal income tax bracket is 8.82%. California's is 13.3%. Taxing the ultra-wealthy is by far the easiest way to raise revenue, but Illinois refuses to do this and has to make up the difference via property tax, sales tax, and not paying its bills.

Illinois actually has one of the smallest state governments per capita in the country: 205 state employees per 10k population (source: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html). The smallest state government is Michigan's (184 employees per 10k population), the largest is Wyoming's (446). New York is number three, at 316, and California is towards the middle at 228.

The pension thing is only a crisis, as opposed to a serious but surmountable problem, because Illinois is so low tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay how did this turn into a rehash of the Gray Line proposal that is long dead? The costs outweigh the benefits, so please let it stay dead and in the graveyard where it belongs. Geez. As pointed out by Busjack himself, he only quoted those numbers to highlight how little the demand is for current ME services that the Gray Line would replace. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jajuan said:

Okay how did this turn into a rehash of the Gray Line proposal that is long dead? The costs outweigh the benefits, so please let it stay dead and in the graveyard where it belongs. Geez. As pointed out by Busjack himself, he only quoted those numbers to highlight how little the demand is for current ME services that the Gray Line would replace. 

Of course there's no demand for a train that only comes once an hour most of the day. If the rest of the L adhered to the Metra schedule you'd see similarly pathetic ridership numbers.

The benefits of the gray line are more or less the same as the benefits of the red line extension, and the cost is substantially less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jajuan said:

Okay how did this turn into a rehash of the Gray Line proposal that is long dead? The costs outweigh the benefits, so please let it stay dead and in the graveyard where it belongs. Geez. As pointed out by Busjack himself, he only quoted those numbers to highlight how little the demand is for current ME services that the Gray Line would replace. 

Yeah, I just scrolled up to the title of this thread and I’m totally lost now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jajuan said:

Okay how did this turn into a rehash of the Gray Line proposal that is long dead? The costs outweigh the benefits, so please let it stay dead and in the graveyard where it belongs. Geez. As pointed out by Busjack himself, he only quoted those numbers to highlight how little the demand is for current ME services that the Gray Line would replace. 

 

14 hours ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

Yeah, I just scrolled up to the title of this thread and I’m totally lost now.

Apparently we attracted a [fill in the blank] whom I strung along too long challenging his very unsupported assertions, until I finally challenged him to come up with a business case, something he can't do, nor continually argue about. As the two of you indicated above, maybe ignoring it would have been the better course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By BusHunter
      There is an article today that talks about the brown line flyover. I'm surprised they have to demolish up to 16 houses for this? Can't they just build over the existing structure?
       
      http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140417/lakeview/ctas-belmont-station-bypass-16-lakeview-buildings-needed
    • By newport
      (starting a new thread since this topic really didn't fit under the Red-Purple Modernization thread)

      It looks like the Dan Ryan branch track project is going to roll out as someone else originally projected many weeks ago – a complete shutdown of the south branch of the Red Line from just south of Roosevelt to 95th. Subsequent to that post, I had heard that the CTA was going to offer a second option of weekend-only work for 4 years, but that the preferred plan was the complete 5-month shutdown. They had decided to present the second, weekend-only option, in order to give the appearance that they were offering the community and aldermen an option.

      Well, it now looks like the weekend-only closures option is not seriously being considered. They are going with the complete shutdown plan. The complete Dan Ryan branch shutdown will begin in spring 2013 and last through the summer.

      The details are basically as Mayfield laid out weeks ago:
      Red Line will shut down completely from south of Roosevelt station to 95th in spring 2013 The shutdown will continue for 5 months Southbound Red line trains will be rerouted to Green line tracks after stopping at Roosevelt and will serve all Green line stops to Ashland/63rd Express bus shuttles will run from Garfield Green station to 63rd, 69th, 79, 87th, and 95th Red. there will be other additional supplemental bus service
      One thing that changed since Mayfield outlined this plan is that the CTA intends to offer some free and discounted fares to some riders affected by the shutdown. This helped to ensure the support of the aldermen, at least in one office I am aware of. Not sure of the extent of these free fares. This is still under discussion. I heard possibly free shuttle buses and free fares boarding at Garfield Greenline station.

      Also, the CTA has reached out to and received the support of the Chicago Urban League (for support on hiring issues?). As I hear it, the big selling point is the number of jobs this project will create.

      This information is for your information and discussion. I have no official proof I will post, and no official sources I will identify. Doing so would probably cut off my source of info.
      .

    • By BusHunter
      Looks like they are putting a switch in from track 1 to track 2, just south of Lawrence/Red line. I guess that's part of the preliminary work that needs to be done before the project will start. Looks like they are starting at track 1 and working they're way to four, unlike both Belmont and Fullerton/Red line which was the opposite.
    • By BusHunter
      I took a few pictures of the Clark/Division station on the Red line. At street level, on Lasalle, they already have concrete staircases in place and the big hole over Division has been filled. Looks like they want to open up the street for November. At platform level, they have now opened up an area on the east side of the station and we can now see the decorative ceiling tiles they are installing. They also have one light bar installed, and the marble sheeting on the floor of the station in that section. (pictures from left to right are: Lasalle SE corner, Lasalle NE corner, station ceiling, station lightbar, station floor)




    • By Kevin
      There was some discussion on CTA Tattler today regarding the upcoming Red & Purple Modernization Project public scoping meetings.

      There are more details about all of the proposed alternatives in the Notice of Intent filed with the FTA. (Credit to Hugh Bartling for finding this document.)

      First, there's the "No Action Alternative" which would do nothing. The "Basic Rehabilitation Alternative" would essentially put lipstick on a pig, while the "Basic Rehabilitation with Transfer Stations Alternative" would add Purple Line transfer stations at Wilson and Loyola.

      Both the "Modernization 4-Track Alternative" and "Modernization 3-Track Alternative" would permanently close four stations: South Blvd, Jarvis, Thorndale, and Lawrence. Both of these options would replace the existing structure and embankment with "modern concrete aerial structure" while also rebuilding most stations. The 3-Track option would allow for Purple Line Express service in only a single direction.

      The "Modernization 2-Track Underground Alternative" would replace most of the existing Red Line structure with a two-track subway. Trains would transition below ground after Belmont, following the Brown Line tracks and then running under Sheffield/Sheridan to the intersection of Sheridan and Broadway, where they would then run under Broadway until returning to elevated just north of Loyola. Subway stations would be constructed at Addison, Irving Park, Wilson, Foster, Bryn Mawr, Glenlake, and Devon/Loyola. Purple Line Express service would be discontinued in favor of more frequent local service. I created a map of what this proposed subway portion would look like. (Not that I actually expect this to ever get built.)

      Public meetings will be held in Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, and Evanston next week to get input on the alternatives.
×